HSE urges school leaders not to wrap kids in cotton wool
- As the new school year begins, HSE is reminding school leaders to strike the right balance in their approach to health and safety risks.
Bans on children wearing frilly socks, hot drinks on school trips and supposed “dangerous footballs” from the playground, are just some of the cases HSE’s Mythbusters Challenge panel has ruled on, where schools have made over zealous and disproportionate decisions in the name of ‘health and safety’ when it comes to dealing with risks to children.
HSE has published new web-based guidance designed to support school leaders to strike the right balance and encourage them to avoid being risk averse. Whilst children need to be kept safe, they also should be able to learn through experience and play conkers without wearing goggles!
Geoff Cox, Head of HSE’s Public Services Sector said:
“Our myth busting shows that schools sometimes go over the top in their efforts to get health and safety right – but in some cases they don’t go far enough.
“We want to encourage school managers to use this guidance to find their own Goldilocks approach – not too much, not too little, but just the right balance. Real risks need to be managed, but that doesn’t mean wrapping children in cotton wool.”
HSE’s Public Services Sector consulted with local government and education stakeholders, the teaching unions and schools health and safety managers to develop the guidance
This is a clear case of "health and safety" being used as an easy catch all excuse rather than explaining the reasons for their policy.
HSE has published new web-based guidance designed to support school leaders to strike the right balance and encourage them to avoid being risk averse. Whilst children need to be kept safe, they also should be able to learn through experience and play conkers without wearing goggles!
Geoff Cox, Head of HSE’s Public Services Sector said:
“Our myth busting shows that schools sometimes go over the top in their efforts to get health and safety right – but in some cases they don’t go far enough.
“We want to encourage school managers to use this guidance to find their own Goldilocks approach – not too much, not too little, but just the right balance. Real risks need to be managed, but that doesn’t mean wrapping children in cotton wool.”
HSE’s Public Services Sector consulted with local government and education stakeholders, the teaching unions and schools health and safety managers to develop the guidance
Fee for Intervention is effective and should stay, says report
- A scheme designed to shift the cost of regulating workplace health and safety from the public purse to businesses who break the law has proven effective and should stay, an independent report has concluded.
The report recognised that inspectors at the Health and Safety Executive have implemented ‘Fee for Intervention’ consistently and fairly since it started in October 2012, and found no evidence to suggest that enforcement policy decisions had been influenced in any way by its introduction.
The independent panel which conducted the review was chaired by Alan Harding, professor of public policy at Liverpool University. Other participants were representatives of the GMB trade union, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Department for Work and Pensions.
According to the report’s authors, the professional approach adopted by HSE’s inspectors has ensured any challenges raised by the scheme during its first 18 months were minimised. The evidence suggests the concerns voiced about FFI have not manifested themselves to any significant or serious extent and that ‘generally inspectors and duty holders continue to work together in improving health and safety management’.
Judith Hackitt, Chair of HSE, said:
“Both HSE and the Government believe it is right that those who fail to meet their legal health and safety obligations should pay our costs, and acceptance of this principle is growing. This review gives us confidence that FFI is working effectively and should be retained. We will continue to monitor the performance of Fee for Intervention to ensure it remains consistent and fair.”
The report, published by HSE today, along with associated research papers, concludes that “it [FFI] has proven effective in achieving the overarching policy aim of shifting the cost of health and safety regulation from the public purse to those businesses who break health and safety laws.”
It also concludes that:
- Fears that FFI would be used to generate revenue have proven to be unfounded.
- While not popular with some inspectors and duty holders, it has been embedded effectively and applied consistently.
- There is no viable alternative that can achieve the same aims.
HSE Myth Busters
Free weights not allowed in gyms
Issue
Many gyms, especially commercial, only have resistance machines instead of free weights. Health and safety is always the explanation for this as it is said that free weights are unsafe.Panel decision
There are no Health and safety regulations which would prevent someone lifting free weights in a gym. The gym has a right to set its own policy on the provision and use of fixed weights, which may be linked to levels of supervision and the need to ensure people know how to use the equipment properly. However, it should state its reasons clearly.This is a clear case of "health and safety" being used as an easy catch all excuse rather than explaining the reasons for their policy.
Chips can not be served in a paper cone
Issue
When ordering chips from a chip shop to take away, enquirer's wife asked for her chips to be just put in paper and wrapped in a cone rather than have them served in the normal plastic type tray so they would be easier to eat and carry as they walked round the shops. However, she was told by the lady serving behind the counter... "We can't do that, it's against health and safety, in case you burn yourself on the chips". She was then advised that once they served them to her, she is more than welcome to remove the tray and wrap them up herself.Panel decision
The customer made a perfectly sensible request and there is no health and safety reason which would prevent the shop proprietor doing as requested. Cases of poor customer service like this need to be wrapped up and thrown in the bin.Landlord fined for endangering tenants
- The landlord of a property in Plymouth risked the lives of a young mother and her child, by providing a dangerous gas oven installed in the house a court has heard.
Giles Boardman was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at Plymouth Magistrates on 29 August following an investigation.
HSE began inquiries when Plymouth City Council alerted them to the lack of a gas safety certificate for the property in Dickiemoor Lane. The council had asked him to provide a certificate on several occasions.
HSE served an Improvement Notice on Mr Boardman, requiring him to provide a landlords’ gas safety check but this had not been done by the notice expiry date.
In April, 2014, an engineer called in by Mr Boardman, found problems with the gas controls that controlled the gas flow for oven and notified HSE. The oven was classified by the Gas Safe registered engineer as Immediately Dangerous, meaning if operated or left connected to the gas supply it could cause an immediate danger to life or property. The oven has now been replaced.
Giles Boardman of Wheatridge, Plympton, Plymouth pleaded guilty to two breaches of gas safety regulations and a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act. He was fined a total of £4,050 and ordered to pay costs of £513.
HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:
“Landlords have a legal duty to carry out gas safety checks which are there to protect their tenants from death or injury.
“In this case, Mr Boardman ignored repeated requests to carry out the checks and as a result, a serious fault with the oven went undetected until discovered by an engineer.”
Gas engineer left boiler in dangerous state
HSE began inquiries when Plymouth City Council alerted them to the lack of a gas safety certificate for the property in Dickiemoor Lane. The council had asked him to provide a certificate on several occasions.
HSE served an Improvement Notice on Mr Boardman, requiring him to provide a landlords’ gas safety check but this had not been done by the notice expiry date.
In April, 2014, an engineer called in by Mr Boardman, found problems with the gas controls that controlled the gas flow for oven and notified HSE. The oven was classified by the Gas Safe registered engineer as Immediately Dangerous, meaning if operated or left connected to the gas supply it could cause an immediate danger to life or property. The oven has now been replaced.
Giles Boardman of Wheatridge, Plympton, Plymouth pleaded guilty to two breaches of gas safety regulations and a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act. He was fined a total of £4,050 and ordered to pay costs of £513.
HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:
“Landlords have a legal duty to carry out gas safety checks which are there to protect their tenants from death or injury.
“In this case, Mr Boardman ignored repeated requests to carry out the checks and as a result, a serious fault with the oven went undetected until discovered by an engineer.”
Gas engineer left boiler in dangerous state
- A Somerset gas engineer has been fined for unsafe gas work after leaving a boiler in an “immediately dangerous” condition when he carried out a service.
Mark Sampson, 42, from Bridgwater, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at Exeter Magistrates’ Court for a safety breach following an investigation into his actions.
Magistrates were told that Mr Sampson is a registered gas engineer with the Gas Safe Register, and that as well as undertaking work independently he also carried out work as an employee of a local company.
The court heard how the company, also on the Gas Safe Register, had instructed Mr Sampson to service the boiler at a property in Brackendown, West Hill, on 19 March 2014 as part of a contract the homeowners had with their energy supplier.
He carried out the service but said he needed to order some parts and left the property, leaving the boiler working. He then contacted his boss to seek approval from the energy supplier to obtain the parts.
The energy supplier was suspicious and instructed another gas engineer from a separate company to visit the home the same day to check if the parts were really needed. The second engineer found some of the parts were not needed and that Mr Sampson had used a 20p piece to “repair” a viewing glass in the boiler which mean it had to be classed as “immediately dangerous”.
Mark Sampson, 42, of Watermans Meadow, Bridgwater, was fined £1,000 ordered to pay £353 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Simon Jones said:
“Mark Sampson was Gas Safe registered, which makes it even more shocking that he failed to carry out this work to the correct standard thereby putting the homeowners and any visitors to the property at risk.
“Using a 20p piece in this way is totally unacceptable and meant the boiler was classed as ‘immediately dangerous’ posing a risk of fire and carbon monoxide gas leaking from the boiler.
“There were signs of heat damage inside and outside the boiler before Mark Sampson carried out this ‘repair”, so he should have been alerted to the risk of fire.”
Magistrates were told that Mr Sampson is a registered gas engineer with the Gas Safe Register, and that as well as undertaking work independently he also carried out work as an employee of a local company.
The court heard how the company, also on the Gas Safe Register, had instructed Mr Sampson to service the boiler at a property in Brackendown, West Hill, on 19 March 2014 as part of a contract the homeowners had with their energy supplier.
He carried out the service but said he needed to order some parts and left the property, leaving the boiler working. He then contacted his boss to seek approval from the energy supplier to obtain the parts.
The energy supplier was suspicious and instructed another gas engineer from a separate company to visit the home the same day to check if the parts were really needed. The second engineer found some of the parts were not needed and that Mr Sampson had used a 20p piece to “repair” a viewing glass in the boiler which mean it had to be classed as “immediately dangerous”.
Mark Sampson, 42, of Watermans Meadow, Bridgwater, was fined £1,000 ordered to pay £353 costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 7(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Simon Jones said:
“Mark Sampson was Gas Safe registered, which makes it even more shocking that he failed to carry out this work to the correct standard thereby putting the homeowners and any visitors to the property at risk.
“Using a 20p piece in this way is totally unacceptable and meant the boiler was classed as ‘immediately dangerous’ posing a risk of fire and carbon monoxide gas leaking from the boiler.
“There were signs of heat damage inside and outside the boiler before Mark Sampson carried out this ‘repair”, so he should have been alerted to the risk of fire.”
Landlord in court for gas safety failing
- An Accrington landlord has been ordered to pay nearly £60,000 in fines and costs after he ignored repeated warnings about arranging an annual gas safety check at a house in the town.
Tariq Ali was given numerous opportunities by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to arrange an inspection for a property on Persia Street after the previous gas safety record expired in October 2012.
Landlords are required by law to have gas appliances checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer at least once a year, but Mr Ali failed to do this.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that he first came to the attention of the Gas Safe Register – the official body for gas engineers – in 2011 after gas appliances at several of his properties were classified as being ‘at risk’ or ‘immediately’ dangerous’.
Mr Ali was served with an improvement notice relating to the property on Persia Street on 12 September 2013, giving him one month to arrange an annual gas safety check. However, he failed to meet the deadline.
Tariq Ali, of Knotwood Court, Accrington, was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £18,054 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to single breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on 4 September 2014. The charges relate to failing to have the gas appliances checked annually, and failing to comply with an improvement notice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Stuart Kitchingman said: “Mr Ali put his tenants’ lives at risk for financial gain by failing to arrange a gas safety check for nearly two years. We gave him several chances to organise an inspection, but he ignored all of these – including a formal improvement notice. We therefore had no choice but to take legal action.
“Dozens of people are killed or badly harmed every year from carbon monoxide poisoning so it is vital that landlords take the risks seriously. We will continue to prosecute landlords who think the law doesn’t apply to them.”
Russell Kramer, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register, commented: “When it comes to rented property, it is important that landlords know their duties and tenants know their rights. A landlord must be able to provide a gas safety record for the property, showing that the gas appliances have been safety checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer in the last 12 months.
“Tenants can also sign up to a free reminder service at staygassafe.co.uk to make sure their landlord or managing agent is carrying out their duties of getting an annual gas safety check.”
Landlords are required by law to have gas appliances checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer at least once a year, but Mr Ali failed to do this.
Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that he first came to the attention of the Gas Safe Register – the official body for gas engineers – in 2011 after gas appliances at several of his properties were classified as being ‘at risk’ or ‘immediately’ dangerous’.
Mr Ali was served with an improvement notice relating to the property on Persia Street on 12 September 2013, giving him one month to arrange an annual gas safety check. However, he failed to meet the deadline.
Tariq Ali, of Knotwood Court, Accrington, was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £18,054 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to single breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on 4 September 2014. The charges relate to failing to have the gas appliances checked annually, and failing to comply with an improvement notice.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Stuart Kitchingman said: “Mr Ali put his tenants’ lives at risk for financial gain by failing to arrange a gas safety check for nearly two years. We gave him several chances to organise an inspection, but he ignored all of these – including a formal improvement notice. We therefore had no choice but to take legal action.
“Dozens of people are killed or badly harmed every year from carbon monoxide poisoning so it is vital that landlords take the risks seriously. We will continue to prosecute landlords who think the law doesn’t apply to them.”
Russell Kramer, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register, commented: “When it comes to rented property, it is important that landlords know their duties and tenants know their rights. A landlord must be able to provide a gas safety record for the property, showing that the gas appliances have been safety checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer in the last 12 months.
“Tenants can also sign up to a free reminder service at staygassafe.co.uk to make sure their landlord or managing agent is carrying out their duties of getting an annual gas safety check.”
Scaffolding boss jailed for worker death failings
- The Eltham-based owner of a Kent scaffolding business has been jailed for 15 months for safety failings after a worker plunged 14 metres to his death at a site in North West London.
The sentence, at Southwark Crown Court, will run concurrently with the unrelated life imprisonment imposed on Mark Anthony Hayes at the Old Bailey in July this year for the murder of his brother in a family feud.
The latest conviction is the third that Mark Hayes, 53, trading as WSS Scaffolding, has received for offences arising from the fatality of scaffolder Grant Dunmall at Linden Gardens in Notting Hill on 2 July 2012.
He was fined at two separate appearances at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in January and March last year for offences relating to the non-disclosure of essential documents to support a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation.
When it was eventually supplied, the missing paperwork enabled HSE to conclude its enquiries, and highlighted that Mr Hayes could and should have done more to prevent the fall.
Southwark Crown Court was told that Mr Hayes from Eltham, south east London, was responsible for a tower scaffold outside a domestic property. His employee, scaffolder Grant Dunmall, 25, from Hither Green, was working on the structure when he fell, sustaining fatal injuries.
After a three-day trial at Southwark Crown Court, which concluded yesterday (3 Sept), Mr Hayes was found guilty of a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to properly plan, supervise and carry out the work at height in a safe manner at the Notting Hill site.
HSE established that edge protection was missing from the scaffold, and that Mr Dunmall wasn’t provided with any other means such as a fall arrest harness, to prevent or mitigate a fall.
Mr Hayes, of Eltham Green Road, Greenwich, south east London was found guilty after defending the case and sent to prison for 15 months for breaching the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Last year, combined fines of £12,000 and costs of £5,601 were imposed on Mr Hayes after he admitted breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
The breaches addressed Mr Hayes’ failure to provide legally-required documents relating to his management of work at height after he had earlier ignored a ‘Notice to produce’ served by HSE.
Speaking after the sentencing, HSE Inspector Jack Wilby commented:
“The family and friends of Grant Dunmall have suffered enough heartache through the loss of their loved one without the additional stress of the convoluted legal process we have had to go through to secure justice.
“Our investigation into his tragic death was delayed for several months because of Mark Hayes’ total lack of co-operation in supporting our work. That had a knock-on impact in delaying the Coroner’s inquest, and we had no option but to prosecute before he eventually provided the documentation we needed.
“His wilful obstruction only served to accentuate the fact that his systems and procedures for safely managing work at height were sorely lacking, and fell short of the standards expected from a competent scaffolder.
“The bottom line here is that Mr Dunmall was killed in a preventable fall that could have been avoided.”
Grant’s family added:
“The loss of Grant was a devastating shock to us and also his friends.
“There are rules and regulations in place for very good reasons and the most important of those is to save unnecessary loss of life. If all employers and companies abide by these rules then more families could be spared the pain and heartache that we have had to experience.
“HSE pursued this investigation despite the lack of co-operation by Mark Hayes and we are pleased justice has been done.”
The latest conviction is the third that Mark Hayes, 53, trading as WSS Scaffolding, has received for offences arising from the fatality of scaffolder Grant Dunmall at Linden Gardens in Notting Hill on 2 July 2012.
He was fined at two separate appearances at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in January and March last year for offences relating to the non-disclosure of essential documents to support a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation.
When it was eventually supplied, the missing paperwork enabled HSE to conclude its enquiries, and highlighted that Mr Hayes could and should have done more to prevent the fall.
Southwark Crown Court was told that Mr Hayes from Eltham, south east London, was responsible for a tower scaffold outside a domestic property. His employee, scaffolder Grant Dunmall, 25, from Hither Green, was working on the structure when he fell, sustaining fatal injuries.
After a three-day trial at Southwark Crown Court, which concluded yesterday (3 Sept), Mr Hayes was found guilty of a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to properly plan, supervise and carry out the work at height in a safe manner at the Notting Hill site.
HSE established that edge protection was missing from the scaffold, and that Mr Dunmall wasn’t provided with any other means such as a fall arrest harness, to prevent or mitigate a fall.
Mr Hayes, of Eltham Green Road, Greenwich, south east London was found guilty after defending the case and sent to prison for 15 months for breaching the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Last year, combined fines of £12,000 and costs of £5,601 were imposed on Mr Hayes after he admitted breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.
The breaches addressed Mr Hayes’ failure to provide legally-required documents relating to his management of work at height after he had earlier ignored a ‘Notice to produce’ served by HSE.
Speaking after the sentencing, HSE Inspector Jack Wilby commented:
“The family and friends of Grant Dunmall have suffered enough heartache through the loss of their loved one without the additional stress of the convoluted legal process we have had to go through to secure justice.
“Our investigation into his tragic death was delayed for several months because of Mark Hayes’ total lack of co-operation in supporting our work. That had a knock-on impact in delaying the Coroner’s inquest, and we had no option but to prosecute before he eventually provided the documentation we needed.
“His wilful obstruction only served to accentuate the fact that his systems and procedures for safely managing work at height were sorely lacking, and fell short of the standards expected from a competent scaffolder.
“The bottom line here is that Mr Dunmall was killed in a preventable fall that could have been avoided.”
Grant’s family added:
“The loss of Grant was a devastating shock to us and also his friends.
“There are rules and regulations in place for very good reasons and the most important of those is to save unnecessary loss of life. If all employers and companies abide by these rules then more families could be spared the pain and heartache that we have had to experience.
“HSE pursued this investigation despite the lack of co-operation by Mark Hayes and we are pleased justice has been done.”
Building firm pays price for teenager’s loft fall
- A 17-year-old labourer from south-west London had a narrow escape after surviving a four-metre fall through a hole in a loft with only cuts and bruises.
However, his employer, More Than Lofts Ltd of Worcester Park, Sutton, suffered a financial penalty when it was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for safety failings that led to the incident.
Westminster magistrates were told the young worker was part of a team converting the loft at a property in Hammersmith when the incident happened on 6 June 2013.
He stepped on some fragile material that covered a void in the floor and fell four metres, landing on a staircase. The worker, from Morden, who does not wish to be named, suffered no significant injuries.
HSE’s investigation found there were several uncovered or poorly-covered fragile surfaces in the loft space on site. It said More Than Lofts Ltd had failed to take suitable action to prevent falls, such as using platforms or robust covers for the holes in the loft floor.
The court also heard that the company had been served with a Prohibition Notice by HSE in June 2010 halting all work underway on a loft conversion because of the immediate dangers to workers from the lack of safety measures.
More Than Lofts Ltd, of Central Road, Worcester Park, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £729 in full costs after admitting a breach of the Work at Height Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Gavin Pugh said:
“This young man had an extremely lucky escape from what could have been a fatal or severe injury in a fall of that distance. He and his co-workers were put in unnecessary danger by the careless approach to safety demonstrated by More Than Lofts Ltd.
“The company had ample materials on site to cover over fragile surfaces during work on this loft conversion but failed to do so. It also clearly disregarded the lessons that should have been learned from the previous enforcement notice about working at height.
“Companies that skirt around safety put lives at risk. The hazards presented by working on or close to fragile surfaces are widely known in the industry and there are numerous deaths and injuries to workers as a result of safety failures every year.”
HSE’s Construction Division is carrying out a nationwide safety initiative on loft conversions during this year, focusing on falls from height and asbestos. Inspectors are making site visits and giving briefings to contractors with the aim of tackling poor standards in loft conversion work and also to raise awareness of the risks that this work involves.
Westminster magistrates were told the young worker was part of a team converting the loft at a property in Hammersmith when the incident happened on 6 June 2013.
He stepped on some fragile material that covered a void in the floor and fell four metres, landing on a staircase. The worker, from Morden, who does not wish to be named, suffered no significant injuries.
HSE’s investigation found there were several uncovered or poorly-covered fragile surfaces in the loft space on site. It said More Than Lofts Ltd had failed to take suitable action to prevent falls, such as using platforms or robust covers for the holes in the loft floor.
The court also heard that the company had been served with a Prohibition Notice by HSE in June 2010 halting all work underway on a loft conversion because of the immediate dangers to workers from the lack of safety measures.
More Than Lofts Ltd, of Central Road, Worcester Park, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £729 in full costs after admitting a breach of the Work at Height Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Gavin Pugh said:
“This young man had an extremely lucky escape from what could have been a fatal or severe injury in a fall of that distance. He and his co-workers were put in unnecessary danger by the careless approach to safety demonstrated by More Than Lofts Ltd.
“The company had ample materials on site to cover over fragile surfaces during work on this loft conversion but failed to do so. It also clearly disregarded the lessons that should have been learned from the previous enforcement notice about working at height.
“Companies that skirt around safety put lives at risk. The hazards presented by working on or close to fragile surfaces are widely known in the industry and there are numerous deaths and injuries to workers as a result of safety failures every year.”
HSE’s Construction Division is carrying out a nationwide safety initiative on loft conversions during this year, focusing on falls from height and asbestos. Inspectors are making site visits and giving briefings to contractors with the aim of tackling poor standards in loft conversion work and also to raise awareness of the risks that this work involves.
Roofing firm fined for worker’s life threatening injuries
- A roofer nearly died after falling whilst working on the ridge of part of a roof where there was no protection to prevent a fall.
James Hopkin (29) from Plymouth, was working on the pitched roof of a mid-terraced house in Torpoint on 18 April 2013 when he fell down onto the rear tenement roof and landed in a neighbouring courtyard suffering severe head injuries.
The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted Mr Hopkin’s employer, B&C Roofing, at Truro Magistrates Court today (2 September).
The court heard that Mr Hopkin was the supervisor for the work on the house in Marine Drive and was working on the ridge of the main roof when he fell, sustaining life threatening and life changing injuries and leaving him bed bound for more than six months.
No edge protection, which could have prevented the fall to the ground, had been installed to protect the area where he was working and ultimately fell.
B&C Roofing, of Forresters Business Park, Estover Close, Plymouth, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £9,627 in costs.
Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Jonathan Harris said:
“Mr Hopkin suffered major, life-changing injuries and there was a real possibility that the fall could have proved fatal.
“Falls from height are the biggest cause of workplace deaths and it’s crucial that employers make sure work is properly planned, appropriately supervised and that sufficient measures such as edge protection are put in place to control the risks of harm from falls.
“There is no excuse for employers failing to safeguard workers who have to work at height.”
The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which prosecuted Mr Hopkin’s employer, B&C Roofing, at Truro Magistrates Court today (2 September).
The court heard that Mr Hopkin was the supervisor for the work on the house in Marine Drive and was working on the ridge of the main roof when he fell, sustaining life threatening and life changing injuries and leaving him bed bound for more than six months.
No edge protection, which could have prevented the fall to the ground, had been installed to protect the area where he was working and ultimately fell.
B&C Roofing, of Forresters Business Park, Estover Close, Plymouth, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £16,000 and ordered to pay £9,627 in costs.
Following the hearing, HSE Inspector Jonathan Harris said:
“Mr Hopkin suffered major, life-changing injuries and there was a real possibility that the fall could have proved fatal.
“Falls from height are the biggest cause of workplace deaths and it’s crucial that employers make sure work is properly planned, appropriately supervised and that sufficient measures such as edge protection are put in place to control the risks of harm from falls.
“There is no excuse for employers failing to safeguard workers who have to work at height.”
Enfield firm in court after faking safety record
- A North London meat wholesalers has been sentenced for operating a fault-ridden forklift truck and trying to deceive safety inspectors by forging a positive examination report on the vehicle.
MIB United Meat Ltd, of Enfield, Middlesex, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at Westminster Magistrates’ Court after admitting three breaches of safety legislation.
The court heard that the offences resulted from a routine health and safety inspection at their premises in Stockingswater Lane, Enfield, on 8 March 2013.
During the visit, an HSE inspector asked to see the vehicle examination records for the company’s 2.5-tonne counterbalance forklift truck. A document was later emailed to the inspector but appeared to be – and was later proven to be – a fraud.
HSE found the forklift truck had never been examined, as required by safety rules for lifting equipment, since being purchased in August 2011. A specialist mechanical inspector from HSE, who examined the forklift in April 2013, found more than 40 faults, including some that could have endangered its operator.
HSE served a prohibition notice on MIB United Meat Ltd to stop any use of the vehicle until it was safe to use.
MIB was fined a total of £18,000 and ordered to pay £2314 in full costs for single breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974; the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Tahir Mortuza said:
“MIB United Meat Ltd was required by law to make sure its forklift truck was maintained regularly and properly examined to allow the identification of safety-critical defects. It failed to do this and the vehicle was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being riddled with faults.
“It compounded this failure with a blatant attempt to deceive HSE by forging documentation purporting to be an examination record. This is a serious offence and demonstrates that the company was willing to expose its employees to the risk of serious injury or even death.”
The court heard that the offences resulted from a routine health and safety inspection at their premises in Stockingswater Lane, Enfield, on 8 March 2013.
During the visit, an HSE inspector asked to see the vehicle examination records for the company’s 2.5-tonne counterbalance forklift truck. A document was later emailed to the inspector but appeared to be – and was later proven to be – a fraud.
HSE found the forklift truck had never been examined, as required by safety rules for lifting equipment, since being purchased in August 2011. A specialist mechanical inspector from HSE, who examined the forklift in April 2013, found more than 40 faults, including some that could have endangered its operator.
HSE served a prohibition notice on MIB United Meat Ltd to stop any use of the vehicle until it was safe to use.
MIB was fined a total of £18,000 and ordered to pay £2314 in full costs for single breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974; the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Tahir Mortuza said:
“MIB United Meat Ltd was required by law to make sure its forklift truck was maintained regularly and properly examined to allow the identification of safety-critical defects. It failed to do this and the vehicle was allowed to deteriorate to the point of being riddled with faults.
“It compounded this failure with a blatant attempt to deceive HSE by forging documentation purporting to be an examination record. This is a serious offence and demonstrates that the company was willing to expose its employees to the risk of serious injury or even death.”
No comments:
Post a Comment